Inside Health

Panel Rejects Tighter Abortion Limits in Health Bill

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: October 1, 2009

The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday rejected a Republican proposal to tighten restrictions on abortion in a bill to overhaul the health care system.

The 13-to-10 vote followed party lines, with two exceptions. Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, voted for the restrictions. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, voted against them.

The showdown over abortion came as the committee toiled for a sixth day on the legislation that is intended to provide coverage for millions of Americans while slowing the growth of health care costs. Under the bill, the government would help low- and middle-income people buy insurance by providing subsidies in the form of tax credits.

The bill, written by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, says that no tax credits could be used to pay for abortions except as allowed in the latest appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services -- in case of rape or incest or if the life of a pregnant woman was in danger.

Under the bill, some health plans would cover abortion, and some would not. Private insurers that chose to cover abortion would be required to segregate money, taken from private premiums, to cover the procedure.

The amendment, offered Wednesday by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, would have gone much further. It said that no money provided under the legislation could be used to pay ''any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion,'' with a few limited exceptions. Under the proposal, insurers could have offered ''a separate supplemental policy'' to cover abortions. Such policies would have been financed ''solely by supplemental premiums paid by individuals choosing to purchase the policy.''

Even though the bill would require insurers to segregate personal premium payments from government subsidies, Mr. Hatch said, ''money is fungible,'' and the government should not be subsidizing plans that include coverage of abortion.

Mr. Baucus insisted: ''This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. We are not changing current law.''

But the current restrictions did not envision a situation in which the federal government would be subsidizing private insurance plans and regulating the benefits they offer.

Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said Mr. Hatch's proposal would have imposed ''an unprecedented restriction on what people can buy in the private insurance market.''

Moreover, Ms. Stabenow said it was unrealistic to think that women would buy supplemental insurance to cover abortions for unintended pregnancies. Women do not sit around thinking, ''Maybe some day I will have an unintended pregnancy,'' she said.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said he was pleased with the progress being made by the committee.

''Going back to the days of Harry Truman, every president has talked about health care reform,'' Mr. Reid said. ''We are moving closer and closer all the time.''

But when asked if he would set a deadline for action by the full Senate, perhaps by Thanksgiving, Mr. Reid declined to do so.

''I am not going to set any arbitrary deadlines,'' he said.

Members of the Finance Committee have been inundated with complaints from people who would have to pay new fees or taxes under the legislation.

The committee voted 14 to 9 on Wednesday to protect tax benefits for people 65 and older with high medical expenses, under an amendment offered by Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida. Many of them could have lost the benefits under Mr. Baucus's bill, which would make it more difficult for people to take tax deductions for medical expenses.

Under current law, taxpayers can take an itemized deduction for unreimbursed medical expenses, to the extent that they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Mr. Baucus would raise the threshold to 10 percent.